Reanne Evans was, for a long time, the best female snooker player in the world. Between 2005 and 2014 she won ten world titles, for what it was worth, which wasn't much. Her total career earnings stand at £3,375.

Cue outrage. A single win in a qualifying match at the men's World Championship would be close to double that sum. Evans feels strongly about this. "You'd expect to earn a bit of a living for being top in your sport," she said, earlier this year. Well, yes and no, really. The Olympics are full of leaders in their field who cannot make a living professionally. Not much money in archery, for instance, since Robin Hood called it a day. That's the difference between a job and a hobby. A hobby is what you like doing. A job is what people will pay you to do. Evans likes snooker and is extremely good at it: but even the finals at major women's snooker tournaments do not attract crowds of more than 25. There is no money in women's snooker for the simple reason that it is not popular. In March this year, Evans attempted to reach the World Championship at The Crucible, but lost the first qualifying game 10-8. She played as the only woman on the circuit in 2010-11 but lost all 18 of her matches. A man beaten 18 straight wouldn't have a profitable career in snooker either. He would lose his wild card entry, as Evans did. To believe that she then merits parity with Ronnie O'Sullivan is daft. The gulf is in ability as well as earning potential.

Advertisement

Photography by Getty Images

The argument most frequently advanced is that women's sport would thrive commercially if only it was afforded a higher profile.

There is a Twitter account dedicated solely to the column inches devoted to women's sport in the media. It is permanently disapproving. "Zero women's sport in seven pages ofStandard Sport today," it will sniff. Yet last summer one branch of women's sport got its moment in the sun and may have set its cause back several years. Every ball of the women's Ashes was featured on Sky. It wasn't pretty, or fun.

The lone Test match, in particular, must have been watched with horror by those charged with growing the game. The first England innings included 436 dot balls in a total of 168. The second lasted 59.1 overs, at a rate of 1.7 runs per over. One dismissal summed up the poor fare. Ellyse Perry of Australia bowled a tame long hop which was moving from middle to leg and England's Lydia Greenway somehow misjudged this as a bouncer.

She ducked and turned her head, at which point the ball began its downward trajectory, passing over her right shoulder and clipping the top of the stumps. Greenway had faced 137 balls and scored from ten of them. She was out for 16 having batted for two hours and 28 minutes. One report cited her "heroic resistance". To most of those watching it was simply stupefying.

Advertisement

Photography by Getty Images

Women's cricket was perfectly suited to the ethical battleground; it just wasn't ready for primetime. During his career as sports minister, Andy Burnham - a politician so sharp he recently contrived to lose the Labour leadership to a bloke who stood by accident - said women's cricketers should get as much coverage as the men. It was only when asked to name a single current female cricketer that his argument fell apart. He couldn't.

Women's cricket needs to develop, to evolve, before it can command an audience. There is a reason Serena Williams is as famous as any male athlete worldwide. It concerns excellence, not the overthrow of sexism, or misogyny. The demand that all women's sport deserves profile simply for existing does a disservice to some truly great athletes and events. Williams, the Solheim Cup, Lizzy Yarnold, Jessica Ennis-Hill, great sport and sports people do not have to be forced upon the crowd. They find their place in the market on merit. The 36 per cent of female British medallists at the 2012 Olympics would not have felt overlooked. And Williams, certainly, is a marvel.

Photography by Getty Images

Not just for what she has won, but for the way she redefined her sport. Overnight, a generation of rivals such as Martina Hingis became redundant, blown away by a champion whose ferocity and power remain unmatched even now. She needs one more singles title to equal Steffi Graf's record. Hingis, who Williams defeated for her first grand slam, has not played at a major singles event since 2007 despite being only a year older. When Williams won her first grand slam, Ashley Cole was yet to make his Arsenal debut and Rory McIlroy was ten. Add Williams' doubles titles to her singles wins and she passed Graf in 2010. She currently leads her by 36-23 in grand slam titles.

And there is the nub of it. It is patronising in the extreme to regard all women's sport as equally compelling or worthy. For women to be good, they must also be allowed to be bad, mediocre or just plain boring. Only then, can they stand out.